Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 101

Thread: Desperate DEMOCRATS in the news

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Cool Desperate DEMOCRATS in the news





    PACKING THE COURT, ADDING STATES, THIS WILL BE NEXT ON THE AGENDA


    DEMOCRATS in the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments.

    Legal observers, including those who favor term limits, say they must be accomplished through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been interpreted as requiring life tenure for federal judges and justices.


    https://www.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKCN26F3L3

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Good thread.

    The Constitution does not establish lifetime terms but states only that judges serve "during good behavior". This is not necessarily lifetime appointment language, and both conservative (The Federalist Society) and liberal think tanks have argued that it shouldn't be so interpreted. From the linked article:

    "Turning to the language of Article III of the Constitution, Greene explained that the document says only that justices shall retain their posts “during good behavior.” That phrase has been traditionally read to require life tenure. Greene suggested that term limits, however, would not violate the Constitution if any statute made clear that justices may be removed from office during their 18-year terms only for violating 'good behavior.'"

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/e...t-term-limits/

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to martin For This Post:

    Phantasmal (09-24-2020)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fartin View Post
    Term limits, however, would not violate the Constitution if any statute made clear that justices may be removed from office during their 18-year terms only for violating 'good behavior.'"
    And the party controlling the House would decide which justices are guilty of "violating good behavior"?

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    Good thread.

    The Constitution does not establish lifetime terms but states only that judges serve "during good behavior". This is not necessarily lifetime appointment language, and both conservative (The Federalist Society) and liberal think tanks have argued that it shouldn't be so interpreted. From the linked article:

    "Turning to the language of Article III of the Constitution, Greene explained that the document says only that justices shall retain their posts “during good behavior.” That phrase has been traditionally read to require life tenure. Greene suggested that term limits, however, would not violate the Constitution if any statute made clear that justices may be removed from office during their 18-year terms only for violating 'good behavior.'"

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/e...t-term-limits/
    Life expectancy was not in the 80’s in the 1800’s. It is time that we limit the terms of our officials.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasist View Post
    Life expectancy was not in the 80’s in the 1800’s. It is time that we limit the terms of our officials.
    You didn't say that while your beloved RBG was still above ground, did you, imbecile?

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    The problem as always is interpreting the language. The words "during good behavior" seem to specify only conditions under which judges may be forcibly removed, but this might be during either lifetime or shorter terms as set by Congress. Here the problem of interpretation has a special wrinkle in that the ultimate interpreters will be the currently lifetime serving judges on the SC themselves.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    And the party controlling the House would decide which justices are guilty of "violating good behavior"?
    Uh uh. Hurdle is the same as that for removing a President - impeachment by the House, conviction by two thirds of the Senate.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fartin View Post
    Uh uh. Hurdle is the same as that for removing a President - impeachment by the House, conviction by two thirds of the Senate.
    Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices "during good behavior." This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.

    The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.

    While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_3/ALDE_00000686/

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    You didn't say that while your beloved RBG was still above ground, did you, imbecile?
    Excuse the question but I'm curious, do you think closing your post with, "did you, imbecile?", adds force to the logic of your response or are you merely an imbecile yourself? Thanks.

  11. The Following User Groans At martin For This Awful Post:

    Earl (09-26-2020)

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to martin For This Post:

    Trumpet (09-24-2020)

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices "during good behavior." This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.

    The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.

    While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S1_2_1_3/ALDE_00000686/
    The standard only "ensures" what Congress and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, say it ensures. The language of The Constitution leaves that question unanswered.

  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fartin View Post
    Excuse the question but I'm curious, do you think closing your post with, "did you, imbecile?", adds force to the logic of your response or are you merely an imbecile yourself? Thanks.
    I reserve the right to express myself freely within the rules.

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fartin View Post
    The standard only "ensures" what Congress and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, say it ensures. The language of The Constitution leaves that question unanswered.
    Just as amending the Constitution is not a thing to be undertaken lightly, nor is discarding the tradition of an independent and co-equal branch of government, in my view.

    No justice has ever been removed from the Court by impeachment, although the House tried during another fractious period in American political life.

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Life expectancy was not in the 80’s in the 1800’s. It is time that we limit the terms of our officials.
    nobody under 50 or over 60.......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-25-2020)

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default DEMOCRATS support & encourage vandalism, assault, theft, murder, and arson


    After sundown, rioters in Portland, Oregon commenced smashing windows and burning cars.

    Ted Wheeler, the DEMOCRAT mayor, joined the rioters in "solidarity". The brainless thugs almost killed him, but later cheered when Wheeler prevented police from using tear gas.

    They cheered again when he refused President Trump’s offer of Federal officers. Looters were allowed to steal. Consumers (you) ultimately pay the price, as prices go up to cover theft and vandalism losses, along with insurance premiums on cars, hones, and business premises.

    Opportunism is their name, and hating America is their game.



  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,799
    Thanks
    26,777
    Thanked 19,969 Times in 14,556 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 949 Times in 933 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    You didn't say that while your beloved RBG was still above ground, did you, imbecile?
    ^^^^THIS^^^^

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ExpressLane For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-25-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Democrats are terrified and desperate
    By Terri4Trump in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-06-2020, 07:15 PM
  2. DEMOCRATS are desperate enough to do anything
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-06-2020, 08:45 AM
  3. What desperate DEMOCRATS are afraid you'll find out
    By The Anonymous in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-2020, 04:39 PM
  4. Democrats DESPERATE strategy
    By Burning-Man in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 11-01-2018, 01:59 PM
  5. Obama Abandons Desperate Wisconsin Democrats
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-04-2012, 05:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •